Do the following words sound familiar? “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union….” How about these? “We, the people of Hawai‘i, grateful for Divine Guidance, and mindful of our Hawaiian heritage and uniqueness as an island State….”
You guessed it. Those are the opening phrases of the Constitutions of the U.S. and the State of Hawai‘i. Both documents are interesting, durable and powerful. We have no space here to discuss the relative merits of the two constitutions, but you might find a comparison interesting. I’m sure you have the U.S. Constitution on your bookshelf. Read or download the Hawai‘i Constitution on the Web: www.hawaii.gov/lrb/con/.
Unlike the U.S. Constitution, amendments to our state’s are 1. Voted on by the citizens, and 2. Appended, if passed, to the paragraphs they amend or change. So, the Hawai‘i Constitution doesn’t end with an enumeration of amendments. Instead, it is amended at whatever point is affected.
On Nov. 7, you will be asked to vote on five possible constitutional amendments. Here are those questions in brief. For details, search the Web, check in with the Office of Elections, or get in touch with the Republican or Democratic party headquarters for the state. Sad to say, the political parties are actually almost certain to provide more and better explanatory information than any government office in Hawai‘i. The best “official information” on these questions is on the Web: www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/info/conam/2006ConAm.pdf. The presentation is thorough, but presented as if all readers are lawyers (and I’m not). It is also distilled on pages at 11" x 17"—unreadable when squeezed down to print on your desktop system. And the single file includes the pages for readers of English, Cantonese, Ilocano and Japanese. Reading the pages online is hard, but not impossible.
These amendments were proposed by the state legislature, but they will go into effect only if accepted by the voters. There is a very important issue for every voter to understand: The way votes on constitutional amendments are counted results in a blank ballot (meaning no vote was cast) amounting to a “No” vote. Got it? Not voting equals voting “no.” The “yes” votes have to exceed the sum of “no” votes plus blank votes in order for the amendment to be passed.
Constitutional Question 1: “Shall the Governor be required to select board of regents candidates from a pool of qualified candidates screened and proposed by a candidate advisory council for the board of regents of Hawai‘i as provided by law?” The Governor now has “broad discretion” as to whom she chooses to appoint. This amendment would restrict that discretionary liberty, but would not change the fact that she appoints with the advice and consent of the Senate. The legislature, naturally, would say “yes” to the amendment; after all, they passed it already. The governor’s supporters oppose it.
Constitutional Question 2: “Shall the Constitution be amended to provide for a salary commission to review and recommend salaries for justices, judges, state legislators, the governor, the lieutenant governor, the administrative director of the State, state department heads or executive officers of the executive departments, excluding the superintendent of education and the president of the University of Hawai‘i?” The salaries of the enumerated officers and employees of the State of Hawai‘i are currently reviewed and proposed by three separate commissions. The amendment would dissolve the three commissions and replace them with one. If we could be sure of the expertise on each of the existing commissions, we’d be insane to vote “yes” on this question. We can’t. So, it’s hard to know if this would improve anything or make things worse.
Constitutional Question 3: “Shall the mandatory retirement age of 70 for all state justices and judges be repealed?” No question could sound simpler or have more important political baggage. Democrats would frame this as a matter of keeping up with the real world in which, effectively, “70 is the new 45” and people should not be denied the right to work while they are still able to do the job. Republicans see it as a matter of the Democrats in the legislature trying to prevent the Republican governor from appointing lots of judges in her next term. After all, governors and presidents can extend their political will into the future, long after they are out of office, by appointing judges and justices who will decide legal questions decades. So, is it about the right to work or is it about curbing the Republican executive?
Constitutional Question 4: “Shall the Constitution of the State of Hawai‘i be amended to provide that in continuous sexual assault crimes against minors younger than 14 years of age, the legislature may define: 1. What behavior constitutes a continuing course of conduct; and 2. What constitutes the jury unanimity that is required for a conviction?” This question, oddly, sounds trickier than it is. I sincerely wish that the state issued the kind of election handbook many states provide. In those, the primary proponents and opponents of such questions explain why they like or dislike the proposals. The primary effect of this amendment passing will be that the legislature will be able to enact and see to the enforcement of child-protection legislation the courts otherwise find troublesome.
Constitutional Question 5: “Shall the State be authorized to issue special purpose revenue bonds and use the proceeds from the bonds to assist agricultural enterprises serving important agricultural lands?” Here’s my take on bonds: Why not? OK, actually I know some of the arguments against allowing special purpose bonds, but the truth is that the bond market will determine whether the bonds go anywhere or don’t, and I trust the dealers’ judgment more than I trust my own. You decide for yourself, of course.
I called on a Republican political activist, a Democratic office-holder and a declared Libertarian. Here’s the “answer key” I got from them, with the recommendations in the order R-D-L. Question 1 on regents: no, yes, no. Question 2 on salary commissions: none, yes, no. Question 3 on retirement age: no, yes, no. Questions 4 on sex crimes: yes, yes, no. Questions 5 on ag bonds: no, yes, no.
Vote! Vote on or before Nov. 7, but vote.